Also, I don’t see any reference, even indirectly, to the idea of a return to fellowship, i.e. a change from the way things are now to some different state in the future. Jesus doesn’t say God will be the God of those who are now dead, he quotes God as saying “I am the God of the dead.” Even if we suppose that Jesus is saying the dead retain enough of their personality to have fellowship with God, that would be an argument that the patriarchs are in fellowship with God right now, without any resurrection. The only way to even remotely connect this with a resurrection is to assume that the Sadducees are actually correct and that the dead currently cannot have fellowship with God. But in that case, it would be wrong for God to say “I am the God of the patriarchs” (at least assuming Jesus’ interpretation of what He allegedly meant by that). So any way you slice it, Jesus’ argument still comes out all wrong. He’s trying to force a Pharisee-style resurrection into the Law of Moses, and it doesn’t fit, because Moses did not preach one.

Imagining Christians World-wide, holding their breaths(spirits?) and stomping their feet, “POOPY-HEAD! We WANT it to mean that, so it MEANS THAT! Poopy-head!”

Been arguing on other blog about what it could possibly mean for God to have a ‘begotten’ son.(‘poofing’ sperm into existence?) How is that any more ‘begotten’ than ‘poofing’ Adam into existence?

Missed your regular Friday addition(edition?).

(sadness)

I’ve addressed your arguments and your most recent responses. You’ve not addressed my most recent rebuttals, and until you do, we’re at an impasse.

******

Did you read the email, DD? Please. I don’t see why you just won’t say. Just a quick “yes” or “no” to confirm is all I’m asking for.

I’m saying, “Bible writers only use pneuma in reference to demons in context of possession.”

Um, well, yeah, most NT references to demons are in connection with demonic possession and/or affliction. But you seem to be concluding that if demonic spirits possess people, then only spirits that possess people can be demonic spirits. Surely not, though?

Actually, I think this question can be resolved a bit more easily, and shame on me for not taking the time sooner to look up Acts 23:8 in context. The very next verse says, “And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?’” Now, according to the Law, anyone who communicates with the spirits of the dead has defiled themselves and is to be immediately put to death, as both Pharisees and Sadducees would agree. If the “spirits” in Acts 23 had been a reference to the spirits of the dead, then there is no way the Pharisees could have gotten away with saying, “We see nothing wrong here, perhaps he’s only a necromancer” etc. That would be like saying, “We see nothing wrong with Paul, perhaps some other god has spoken to him.” Just ain’t gonna happen.

I’ll leave it as an open question how the Sadducees could have, in the Law of Moses, a regulation ordering them to punish those who speak with the spirits of the dead, whilst simultaneously denying the possibility that the spirits of the dead existed to be communicated with.

Nice try, but the parallel passage in Matthew 17:14ff identifies the spirit as a demon.

Correct, but why do you say, “Nice try?”

Since we’re talking here about whether or not it was accepted New Testament usage for writers to use the term “spirit” to refer to demons,

Correct; we are indeed talking about whether or not it was accepted New Testament usage for writers to use the term pneuma to refer to demons. I am saying that in the vast majority of its usages, there is only a single condition in which NT writers used pneuma in connection with “evil spirits” or “demons,” and that’s when the latter have entered into a person. In every other usage I know of, pneuma refers to non-demon spirits. Doesn’t your citation of Mark 9 support my point, as does your clarification of Matthew? IOW, if we paraphrase,

I’m saying, “Bible writers only use pneuma in reference to demons in context of possession.”

You’re saying, “In Mark 9, Bible writers use pneuma in context of possession.”

Where do we disagree?

Plus it indulges the Hebrew fondness for symmetrical idioms: alpha and omega, day and night, angel and spirit.

I agree that the Hebrews had such fondness, but in Bible usage symmetrical idioms refer to pairs of mutually exclusive opposites: you are correct that alpha / omega, and day / night denote pairs of mutually exclusive opposites. However, does angel / spirit denote a mutually exclusive pair of opposites?

Also, in Acts 23:8, an odd number of concepts were referenced; we don’t have pairs of terms, we have a triad of them, so there’s another reason I’m hesitant to accept that angel / spirit were intended as symmetrical idioms.

Further, just 4 chapters earlier in Acts 19:16, Luke used the phrase “evil (pon?ros) spirit (pneuma)” in reference to a man possessed by a demon, so then we have to explain the abrupt departure from this biblical tradition: either Luke (or his writer) got sloppy, or they intended a different meaning.

Personally – on account of the aforementioned reasons, discernible biblical patterns and historical consensus – I believe that pneuma in Acts 23:8 refers to a human spirit, and I believe Josephus was correct.

However, recall that none of this matters, as you claim your argument stands regardless of whether the Sadducees believed in any afterlife or not, and I claim my rebuttal to your argument stands regardless of whether the Sadducees believed in any afterlife or not.

However, whereas I’ve addressed your arguments and your most recent responses (Pt. III went up this morning), I note that you’ve not addressed my most recent rebuttals, and that until you do, we’re at an impasse.

..perhaps the most prudent thing to say is that we can’t be sure what it means.

Perhaps. That’s why I’ve agreed with mikespeir, in that “I’m not going to base any arguments on whether the Sadducees believed in life after death.”

But of course the text itself does not explicitly spell out what sense Luke intended to use the term “spirit” in, perhaps the most prudent thing to say is that we can’t be sure what it means.

You can believe in spirits other than the spirits of deceased humans, and you can believe that some of them are evil, and you can even believe that this particular spirit is evil, but there’s no rule that says you must always use the phrase “evil spirit” when speaking of spirits other than the (alleged) spirits of deceased humans. (DD)

Correct. A careful parsing of my arguments will reveal I’ve claimed no such rule, only a discernible pattern. I’ve not said a Bible writer, “must always use the phrase ‘evil spirit’ when speaking of spirits other than the (alleged) spirits of deceased humans.” I’ve simply noted that the Bible writers tended to use specific words to express specific concepts, and that the only instances I’m aware of where Bible writers use pneuma in reference to non-human spirits is when describing a spirit that’s entered into another human being.

Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (mikespeir)

In reference to his mention of Acts 23:8, in your comment Nov. 11 @ 6:10 p.m., you stated that mikespeir was “assuming that by ‘spirit’ Luke meant the spirits of the dead as opposed to spirits as in evil spirits or demons.” Based on exegesis and history, I believe mikespeir’s assumptions are in fact safe. I added that I only know of a single instance in which pneuma is connected with “evil spirits” or “demons,” and that’s when the aforementioned have entered into a human being:

The particular word used [in Acts 23:8] is pneuma and the only usage I know of that includes demons is when spoken in reference of an evil spirit that has entered into a person. Since in other uses of this sort, the writers use the phrase “evil” or “unclean” spirits, and since there are specific words to denote demons, I think the argument that Luke is speaking in reference to departed souls is clearly the stronger argument. (cl)

You then replied,

Not necessarily. See Mark 9, for example. (DD)

Yet, Mark 9 is precisely an account of an evil spirit who entered into a human being, correct? So – if I claim that the only usage I know of connecting pneuma with “evil spirit” is in reference to an evil spirit that’s entered into a human being – and you replied by citing an instance where the Bible writer uses pneuma in reference to an evil spirit that’s entered into a human being – then what exactly were you contesting when you said, “Not necessarily?”

Either way, “God of the living” means “God of the living,” and Jesus’ logic was intact IMO.

The problem is that “God of Abraham” does not mean “Abraham is living.” Notice the difference in the words used to express the idea “God is the God of Abraham” and the idea “Abraham is living.” The one verbal expression is not the other, nor does one imply the other.

In order for Jesus’ logic to be intact, he needs to be able to invoke a grammatical rule that says that whenever the phrase “the X of Y” is used to refer to a past association between X and Y, then that same association must continue through at least the present time (i.e. the time when someone refers to “the X of Y”). But there is no such rule. If there were, then every time the Bible mentioned the gods of the Gentiles, it would be declaring that other gods were also real, live deities having a personal relationship with their followers as well. Are you prepared to concede that the Bible teaches polytheism?

It is perfectly normal and meaningful to identify someone or something in terms of a past association without any obligation to infer that the past association necessarily continues on to the present day. Gettysburg can be the location of Lincoln’s famous Address without Lincoln still standing there delivering it. George H. W. Bush can be the Bush of the Persian Gulf War without that war still being fought. God (if He existed) could still be the God of Abraham on the basis of His past association with ol’ Abe while the latter was still living. We’d know what was meant, and there’s nothing wrong with understanding it that way.

The only reason people try to argue that the phrase “I am the X of Y” must mean that X and Y still exist in the same relationship is because they can’t admit that Jesus was wrong. It’s a quintessential case of special pleading; they don’t even try to apply that same hermeneutical principle to any other situation. Jesus is taking a verse that does not even mention death, let alone declare that anyone is allegedly going to come back from it, and he uses it to contrive a thoroughly bogus argument in favor of an imported pagan doctrine about afterlife and judgment.

…in other uses of this sort, the writers use the phrase “evil” or “unclean” spirits…

Not necessarily. See Mark 9, for example.

A man in the crowd answered, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.”

“O unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.”

So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

You can believe in spirits other than the spirits of deceased humans, and you can believe that some of them are evil, and you can even believe that this particular spirit is evil, but there’s no rule that says you must always use the phrase “evil spirit” when speaking of spirits other than the (alleged) spirits of deceased humans.

And yet, I am routinely identified as an atheist (as were the ancient Christians, by the way). Because I reject the lesser gods of men, including the God of the Bible, people describe me as godless, as though if I don’t accept their god, then I can’t have any god.

And in truth, it is rather difficult to discuss the problems with the Christian God without inadvertently saying things that make me sound like an atheist. The theological errors of Christians are so profound and pervasive that it’s very easy to let them fill the whole scope of my discussion, leaving little room or motivation for disclaimers about the God I do believe in. I try to slip in a reminder here and there, but even then, my attempts at clarification are often ignored, and people still think I’m an atheist.

It’s very easy for me to believe, under the circumstances, that the Sadducees may have suffered a similar distortion of their views. You’d think people would take my word for what my true beliefs are, but I’ve found them to be surprisingly stubborn about this, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the believers of the past turned out to be the same way.

Let’s be honest – most views of the afterlife picture a place where justice is done and wounds are healed. Sheol is just a parking lot for the dead. If the point of believing in an afterlife is to be consoled about death, then we have to look at Job and how he saw no consolation in Sheol. To someone who believes in an afterlife where wrongs are made right and the martyrs are rewarded for their faithfulness, Sheol is not going to seem like an afterlife at all. It’s really just one step above oblivion. You might as well say that the Sadducees don’t believe in an afterlife and be done with it.

“At best he was being ignorant; at worst, deceitful.”

Neither, I’d say. It ignores the very … creative ways in which the ancient Jews approached their texts. Even if Jesus believed that the text contained a meaning hidden from other interpreters by God, but which had been revealed to him through divine inspiration, he’d just be in the same camp as the Great Teacher of the Qumran community.

At best he was being ignorant; at worst, deceitful.

About what? The words “I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” are not the written expression of the Pharisaic idea “In the future, the dead will be brought back to life by being restored to their physical bodies.” Further, identifying “X” in terms of some past “Y” with which it was once associated, in no way requires that “Y” must necessarily be a description of current conditions. Think about it: when you hear someone talk about “the blood of the cross,” do you immediately think that either Jesus must still be bleeding on a cross or else the person must be a liar?

Plus, you’re assuming that by “spirit” Luke meant the spirits of the dead as opposed to spirits as in evil spirits or demons.

The particular word used is pneuma and the only usage I know of that includes demons is when spoken in reference of an evil spirit that has entered into a person. Since in other uses of this sort, the writers use the phrase “evil” or “unclean” spirits, and since there are specific words to denote demons, I think the argument that Luke is speaking in reference to departed souls is clearly the stronger argument.

Either way, “God of the living” means “God of the living,” and Jesus’ logic was intact IMO. Further, other Old Testament verses clearly teach resurrection, so I don’t see what the problem is. These posts were themed around the concept of biblical inerrancy and what it means. While I agree with your overall point that even an inerrant Bible is subject to errant interpreters, I don’t see that you’ve made your case against Exodus 3:6. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead. Jesus noted that God is the “God of the living” and also “their God.” Therefore, they must live. Clearly, the Sadducees had read Exodus 3:6; Jesus was simply noting that they obviously hadn’t thought it through.

Yeah, I had some qualms about this myself. I’m guessing from the context that spirits of the dead is meant, but there’s no way to be sure.

“…the main point, which is that Jesus was using Exodus 3:6 to try and support a doctrine that Exodus 3:6 does not teach. At best he was being ignorant; at worst, deceitful.”

I would agree with that.

At best he was being ignorant; at worst, deceitful.

Or, you could be wrong.

Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Now, of course, “Luke” had his agenda, too. However, I find it hard to look at this particular verse and see an ulterior motive in saying that the Sadducees didn’t believe in a spirit. Maybe he was just wrong? Sure, that could be. I guess it’s just that all the actual ancient comments seem to go against the Sadducees’ belief in life after death, while we have to make inferences from other evidence–which we can’t prove affected this particular one of their beliefs–to see it otherwise.

I think that for the time being I’m not going to base any arguments on whether the Sadducees believed in life after death.